Author: Pallav Nawani
Date: 21:56:02 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2005 at 00:43:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 16, 2005 at 00:25:54, Pallav Nawani wrote: > >>On February 15, 2005 at 21:49:45, Lance Perkins wrote: >> >>>Consider this scenario: >>> >>>You saw someone else's code, then you went out and wrote your own code, which >>>ended up to be like the other code. >>> >>>Even in this scenario, you could be violating the copyright of the other code. >>> >>>The only way around this is with the 'clean room' approach. If you want to make >>>a similar or compatible code, you should have not seen the other person's code. >>>Instead, somebody else would see it, describe to you what it does, then you go >>>and write the code. >> >>This is no different from the first case you have mentioned. Important are >>ideas, not code. Code is just an implementation. Whether you get the idea >>directly from looking the code, or whether you get it indirectly how does it >>matter? Unless, of course you _copy the implementation_. If you look at >>somebody's implementation and then go and write your own, assuming that it is >>not word by word copying and just changing the variable names, it is not a >>clone. At least not by my definition. > >The problem is that 2 people who do the same implementation may use the same >structure except different name for variables. > >Probability is very small but it is not impossible. >I do not like accusing somebody of cloning when he is not quilty(even if the >probability is small) so the only solution is to allow everything. > >Uri I agree that is this is possible, so we may have to factor in the intent of the author as well. That again has its own problems, for who knows the intent of the author other than the author himself? Pallav
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.